Find a Lawyer

NAILA TRANUM JAMSHED versus MUHAMMAD ABBAS

Objection to the High Court's jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCPC), section 88 (6A) and 561A, objecting to the orders of the PC Lux Standby Interim Affiliate Approved by the sub divisional magistrate. On the presence of the appellant of the alleged offender, the wife of the deceased offender filed the objection against the divisional magistrate under section 88 (6A), CRPC, withdrew the interim orders after the inquiry and allowed the objections. The deceased's father challenged the aforesaid counsel, seeking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and remanding the matter to the sub divisional magistrate through the High Court, exercising his jurisdiction under Section 1 561A. Granted, the PC's authenticity of the deceased's father may be challenged by the father through section D to challenge the remand order. There was no Lux Standi. Since he had no interest or right in the attached property, it was a matter between the state and the accused and the person to terminate any right or interest in the attached property where the sub-divisional magistrate Prime Fiction found that after investigating the objections. Interim orders are not permanent in law; they called back the same order. The order was neither illegal nor illegal, nor was this jurisdiction of jurisdiction or process misused by Article 1 561A, CCPC. Could not be challenged under: by the deceased's father in front of the High Court, which has Section 1 561A, CCP C. Under no locus stand to challenge the exercise of options, not justified under the law chambers, law firms from Piaro goth lawyer